Appeasing Russia, Ignoring Our Allies: President Obama's
decision to abandon plans for basing elements of the U.S. global
missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic (the "third
site") is entirely political, designed to appease Russia, but
it will leave the U.S. more vulnerable to the threat of ballistic
missile attack.

A Victory for Putin over NATO: This decision is a
strategic victory for the Kremlin, which is determined to have a
sphere of privileged interest in its region. The U.S. essentially
gave Russia a veto over NATO's support for the third-site defenses
in Europe and turned Poland and the Czech Republic into
second-class NATO citizens as members whose security is subject to
Russia's whims.

Nothing in Return: There is scant evidence that Russia
will deliver anything credible in return for Obama's abandonment of
the third site, especially with regards to the growing Iranian
threat. Russia has already failed to offer any concessions in
return for this policy change and is unlikely to support greater
U.N. sanctions against Iran later this year.

Emasculating America's Credibility: The Obama plan
represents the shameful abandonment of two of America's closest
allies in Central and Eastern Europe, who in the future will have
cause to question the integrity and credibility of American
promises. A Polish spokesperson called the decision "catastrophic
for Poland."

Shameful Surrender

The Technology Does Work: The Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense (GMD) interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech
Republic were in fact cost-effective and proven technologies
that offer protection from long-range missile attack to both Europe
and the U.S. The alternative that Obama will now pursue--sea-based
Standard missiles and later ground-based variants--will not satisfy
those criteria.

No Long-Range Missile Defense for Europe Now: America
has worked with NATO and European allies to develop Europe's
capabilities against short-range missile attacks, which is hugely
important. However, Europe has no capacity to defend itself against
long-range missile attacks, while America has limited defenses
against long-range missile attacks. This decision undermines the
concept of indivisible transatlantic security and enervates NATO's
Article V security guarantees.

Growing Iranian Threat: Vice President Joe Biden
recently said he is now "less concerned, much less concerned" about
the Iranian threat. Where does this assessment come from? The
Iranians successfully tested a space launcher in February and could
have a long-range missile by 2015, and the United Nations confirms
that Iran has enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb today.

Weak and Misleading
Arguments

Either/Or? The Obama plan will deal with the more
"urgent" threat of short-range missiles, but why must we choose one
or the other? The Administration say they do not have new
"intelligence," but rather have made a new assessment of
existing intelligence. They say they are deploying "proven"
systems, but they ignore technological advances when convenient.
They say their plan "enhances" European protection, but that is
true only if you ignore long-range threats.

More Cost-Effective? The Obama team says its plan is
more cost-effective, but what that really means is that it's
cheaper: It will cost $2.5 billion instead of $5 billion. It is
foolish to shortchange national security to pay for giveaways like
the Cash for Clunkers program.

A Loss Leader: This is a strategic loss, a security
loss, a diplomatic loss, and a major loss for America's prestige on
the world stage.

A Better Solution

Fully Fund Missile Defense: Congress should
demand that the Administration fully fund both short- and
long-range missile defenses, thereby preparing America and its
allies for all potential threats.

Share

President Obama's decision to abandon plans for basing elements ofthe U.S. global missile defense shield in Poland and the CzechRepublic is entirely political, designed to appease Russia, but itwill leave the U.S. more vulnerable to the threat of ballisticmissile attack.

One good way you can keep up with Missile Defense and National Security and Defense

Missile Defense, National Security and Defense,

Missile Defense and National Security and Defense

Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.

The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.

More than 450,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More